JPL Wins religious discrimination suit

It's like kind of a sad little pride issue for him. In his mind he feels he has bested you because he refuses to address your points. Really it just makes him an obvious troll. Wished I had seen it sooner.

If it's ignorant to consider creationism as a Christian Religious view... why is it religious discrimination even if they did lay him off for accepting creationism? Seems they laid of a scientist that accepts junk science. Can't be religious discrimination if creationism is just an alternative scientific explanation. If creationism IS a religious view... it isn't any kind of science.

...

OK, so maybe you've never watched a labor relations proceeding in front of a judge. That is becoming very obvious.

There is an element of cause and effect. If the employer discriminated against the employee purely based on his performance and conduct (which they effectively argued in this case) and not based on his beliefs, the employer is in the clear, as evidenced by the ruling.

However, if there was a cause and effect relationship that could be clearly shown to the employees belief in ID and his subsequent personnel action, barring any other critical information, the employer is in jeopardy of losing a religious discrimination lawsuit.

It's obvious that you are wishing to not understand what prima facie means, or that the question asked in red above would be something that an employer would not wish to say in front of a judge, lest he open that door. The question establishes a direct cause and effect relationship between the employees belief, and the personnel action. It also, in context, shows prejudice for the employees belief.

If you will consult with anyone you feel comfortable taking advice from, that is familiar with labor relations law, they'll tell you that the statement in red above would be a problem for an employer if said to a judge.

It's like kind of a sad little pride issue for him. In his mind he feels he has bested you because he refuses to address your points. Really it just makes him an obvious troll. Wished I had seen it sooner.

Actually, I'm being very nice to him, and not pointing out that he is supporting a line of argument that would do an employer great harm in this sort of case. You probably didn't realize that when you said it. How many times have you argued a case before a judge on a labor relations issue?

Consult an attorney that tries EEO cases if you don't want to take my word for it.

No one ever expected you to be objective where I am concerned. Least of all me.

As to whether or not I understand what prima facie means, you never answered this question:

Quote:

Stating that something would be considered religious discrimination 'on its face' basically means that it would be assumed to be religious discrimination in the absence of evidence merely because it happened. Do you agree or disagree?

Rather convenient, given that you're now accusing me of not knowing what prima facie means.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Stating that something would be considered religious discrimination 'on its face' basically means that it would be assumed to be religious discrimination in the absence of evidence merely because it happened. Do you agree or disagree?

I'm not even sure you are aware of what we are speaking about. I can see you are trying to make points, but out of ignorance.

Have you ever argued a case before a judge, opposed by an attorney, on behalf of another employee, on a labor relations issue?

No, you're getting that wrong, and any good judge would be chewing on you about that. Prima Facie is not an assumption of the eventual outcome. Stating that it was would be grounds for appeal.

Prima Facie is simply a "first glance", and if it is there, it warrants more attention.

It generally signals a need to go forward, and explore the situation more completely.

No, you're getting that wrong, and any good judge would be chewing on you about that. Prima Facie is not an assumption of the eventual outcome. Stating that it was would be grounds for appeal.

I am not claiming it is an assumption of the eventual outcome. I am claiming that in the absence of other evidence, an assumption would be made that something were true.

For instance, some states have laws that state mere possession of lock picks, if you are not a licensed dealer or a licensed locksmith, is prima facie evidence of intent to commit burglary.

That means that *with no other evidence*, the mere fact that someone possessed lock picks, and was not a licensed dealer or locksmith, means that the court will assume that it is true that the person possessing the lock picks intended to commit burglary - and the burden to prove otherwise is on the person possessing the picks. That says nothing about outcome, the defense may or may not be able to prove otherwise. If the defense can, the burden shifts again, and the prosecution better have presented other evidence if they want the court to consider the person as having such intent (which is part of why lawyers will point out that some statute states something in particular is prima facie evidence, and will also provide a whole bunch of *other* evidence that also supports that). If the defense can't present evidence to the contrary, then the court will consider the defendant as having had that intent whether he in reality did or not (at least with respect to whatever decisions he has to make where prima facie evidence would apply).

Quote:

Prima Facie is simply a "first glance", and if it is there, it warrants more attention.

Prima facie *means* "at first glance", but that does not make it 'a "first glance"'.

In a legal sense, prima facie is all about who has the burden of proof, and why. In the lock pick example, for instance, it would ordinarily initially be on the prosecution to prove that someone had intent to burglarize. The existence of a state statute making mere possession of lock picks prima facie evidence of intent to burglarize means the prosecution no longer has to show any evidence of intent, other than the fact the person possessed the picks - the court will assume the intent is there, and the burden of proof shifts to the defense, who must now prove otherwise.

It works basically the same way in civil cases. If you're suing someone, you initially have to make your case, which can include presenting evidence that the judge will look at and decide whether or not it's prima facie evidence given the circumstances (if he does, you get to keep going - if he doesn't, your case will get thrown out) - or you can present evidence and cite either law or case law that states that evidence must be considered prima facie evidence, and if you cited that law or case law, and the evidence meets the conditions of that law or case law (assuming the court you are in is bound by the law you are citing, or the ruling that created the case law), the judge cannot do otherwise but consider it prima facie evidence, and the burden of proof will shift to the defense.

Thanks for trying to claim I didn't know any of that, though - it was actually rather funny - as was your attempt to claim that my statement was regarding outcome, when it's quite obvious I was not talking about outcome.

If anything I've said is fundamentally incorrect, I invite Bren to correct me. And I ask you: Do you think that merely having a belief, in the absence of evidence or case law stating that belief is religious, means that the belief is religious?

For instance, I believe I'm wearing shoes right now. If my employer decided to fire me because I believe I'm wearing shoes right now, do you think the mere fact that they fired me because I believe I'm wearing shoes right now would be considered by a court as prima facie evidence of religious discrimination? Or do you think that a court would require me to also present some evidence that my belief that I am wearing shoes is part of my religion, or that my employer considered it so, before it would let me proceed with a claim that my employer was committing religious discrimination, and require my employer to present evidence showing otherwise?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

I am not claiming it is an assumption of the eventual outcome. I am claiming that in the absence of other evidence, an assumption would be made that something were true.

For instance, some states have laws that state mere possession of lock picks, if you are not a licensed dealer or a licensed locksmith, is prima facie evidence of intent to commit burglary.

That means that *with no other evidence*, the mere fact that someone possessed lock picks, and was not a licensed dealer or locksmith, means that the court will assume that it is true that the person possessing the lock picks intended to commit burglary - and the burden to prove otherwise is on the person possessing the picks. That says nothing about outcome, the defense may or may not be able to prove otherwise. If the defense can, the burden shifts again, and the prosecution better have presented other evidence if they want the court to consider the person as having such intent (which is part of why lawyers will point out that some statute states something in particular is prima facie evidence, and will also provide a whole bunch of *other* evidence that also supports that). If the defense can't present evidence to the contrary, then the court will consider the defendant as having had that intent whether he in reality did or not (at least with respect to whatever decisions he has to make where prima facie evidence would apply).

Prima facie *means* "at first glance", but that does not make it 'a "first glance"'.

In a legal sense, prima facie is all about who has the burden of proof, and why. In the lock pick example, for instance, it would ordinarily initially be on the prosecution to prove that someone had intent to burglarize. The existence of a state statute making mere possession of lock picks prima facie evidence of intent to burglarize means the prosecution no longer has to show any evidence of intent, other than the fact the person possessed the picks - the court will assume the intent is there, and the burden of proof shifts to the defense, who must now prove otherwise.

It works basically the same way in civil cases. If you're suing someone, you initially have to make your case, which can include presenting evidence that the judge will look at and decide whether or not it's prima facie evidence given the circumstances (if he does, you get to keep going - if he doesn't, your case will get thrown out) - or you can present evidence and cite either law or case law that states that evidence must be considered prima facie evidence, and if you cited that law or case law, and the evidence meets the conditions of that law or case law (assuming the court you are in is bound by the law you are citing, or the ruling that created the case law), the judge cannot do otherwise but consider it prima facie evidence, and the burden of proof will shift to the defense.

Thanks for trying to claim I didn't know any of that, though - it was actually rather funny - as was your attempt to claim that my statement was regarding outcome, when it's quite obvious I was not talking about outcome.

If anything I've said is fundamentally incorrect, I invite Bren to correct me. And I ask you: Do you think that merely having a belief, in the absence of evidence or case law stating that belief is religious, means that the belief is religious?

For instance, I believe I'm wearing shoes right now. If my employer decided to fire me because I believe I'm wearing shoes right now, do you think the mere fact that they fired me because I believe I'm wearing shoes right now would be considered by a court as prima facie evidence of religious discrimination? Or do you think that a court would require me to also present some evidence that my belief that I am wearing shoes is part of my religion, or that my employer considered it so, before it would let me proceed with a claim that my employer was committing religious discrimination, and require my employer to present evidence showing otherwise?

So, basically we are in agreement then. Little statements or actions can have a large effects in court. Your example of the mere possession of burglars tools is an even more extreme example. I'd have thought that there would be at least some evidence of intent other than mere possession in your garage or something. Now, if that guy was found outside of a jewelry store, and one of his picks was stuck in the lock, that would be convenient.

Any given day in court, odd things can happen. Damage control is important.

So, basically we are in agreement then. Little statements or actions can have a large effects in court.

That's not what we were talking about at all, and you know it. We are currently not talking about whether or not little statements or actions can have a large effect in court. We were talking about your accusation that I don't know what prima facie means. Will you retract your accusation that I don't understand what prima facie means, or are you going to continue to try to change the subject?

Quote:

Your example of the mere possession of burglars tools is an even more extreme example. I'd have thought that there would be at least some evidence of intent other than mere possession in your garage or something. Now, if that guy was found outside of a jewelry store, and one of his picks was stuck in the lock, that would be convenient.

Well, there's some irony. You tell me I don't know anything about prima facie evidence, and that judges would chew me out for making a particular statement (a statement that I expect a judge would agree with in general, in fact, at least when viewing it as a layman's understanding) - yet you'd have thought something that isn't actually true given how courts are required to treat something when there's law or case law mandating that something is prima facie evidence of a crime.

In Virginia, possession of burglarious tools is a class 5 felony, and the statute states that mere possession will be considered prima facie evidence of your intent. If a cop happened to walk past your garage and the door was open, and he saw some lock picks on a bench or something, and you weren't a licensed dealer or a locksmith, then you could get charged with that class 5 felony, and when the judge first looked at the case (before you get to present evidence), he would have to let the case continue - and during the trial it would be on you to prove that you did not have that intent. It's not a good state to live in for people who like to pick locks for fun due to that. Those specific circumstances are not necessarily likely to happen, but from a legal standpoint, if it *did* happen, the person who had the picks in his garage would be in a legal position where it's no longer a matter of the state having to make a case for his intent, but his having to prove that he did not have such intent.

The Texas statute, on the other hand, merely states that possession of burglary tools with the purpose to commit an offense is a crime. Which means the state would have to show that you both possessed such tools and had the purpose to commit an offense, simultaneously. Even still, if someone were to take up lockpicking as a hobby, they would do well to have a bunch of practice locks and some books on lockpicking and locksmithing whenever they take picks anywhere but their home.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

You're missing the forest for single vein in a single leaf. You can look this up, but gloves have found to have been burglary tools. In that case the guy was committing a burglary at the time. Bolt cutters, picks, A gerber multi-tool, even coat hangers can be burglars tools. Intent WITH possession is the key to an offense, not mere possession. At least in Texas. Have I mentioned that I live here for a reason? I have bolt cutters, gloves, a gerber, and several coat hangers. I've used all of them to defeat locks at one time or another. Only for honest reasons, with the property owners permission and at their request.

Anyone that expects a legislature to get things right all the time is in for a few large surprises in a lifetime.

Second, lock picks are different from other tools in the sense that gloves, bolt cutters, a gerber, and coat hangers all have various uses that do not involve opening a device that is primarily intended for security - while lock picks are specifically a tool to open locks, devices which are primarily intended for security.

Third, the Virginia state statute declares that mere possession is prima facie evidence of intent.

You can claim that "possession with intent" is the key to the offense, but when the law says that mere possession is prima facie evidence of intent, then they don't have to prove intent unless *you* can show evidence you had no intent.

Your statement about Texas is what I had stated about Texas - precisely because Texas is not a prima facie state with respect to intent for burglary tools. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by void *

The Texas statute, on the other hand, merely states that possession of burglary tools with the purpose to commit an offense is a crime. Which means the state would have to show that you both possessed such tools and had the purpose to commit an offense, simultaneously.

So say you're in Virginia, not Texas.

You get caught breaking into someone's house with a flashlight, some gloves, and a screwdriver, they're going to be considered "burgurious tools" in Virginia (and a lot of other places, for that matter, including Texas). They're basically going to argue that you are a burglar, those are your tools, and therefore, those tools are your tools for burglary - and you'll get the extra charge.

But say the cop sees gloves in your garage. What's his argument? He doesn't have one.

The cop sees lock picks in your garage. What's his argument? He can argue that you don't have a locksmith license, that picks are only used to pick locks, and that you possessed them. Then they'll cite 18.2-94 of the Virginia code, which states in part "The possession of such burglarious tools, implements or outfit by any person other than a licensed dealer, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny." Guess what? You now have to prove you didn't have intent - precisely because the law states that mere possession is prima facie evidence of intent.

You may be able to possess lockpicks in Virginia. It may not be outright illegal. But you'd better be ready and willing to prove that you don't intend to ever use them for burglary, because if it ever comes up, the prosecution will not have to prove that you intended to use them for burglary - you will have to show you did not.

Whereas in Texas it's merely a good idea to be able to prove that you don't intend to use them for burglary (which is why I said that "they would do well to have a bunch of practice locks and some books on lockpicking and locksmithing whenever they take picks anywhere but their home". Mere possession won't be considered evidence of intent. However, if they try to argue that some circumstance beyond your control is evidence of intent - like, say, proximity to a jewelry store that you didn't necessarily even know existed - it will be better for you if you can show that it is your hobby. Not just by what you have with you - but also how long it's been your hobby, etc. If you happen to be on the way, or coming home from, a gathering of people who pick locks for fun, you'd probably rather be able to tell a cop "No, no, I'm headed to a meeting of hobby lockpickers, that's why I've got these picks, these practice locks, and these books" if something strange ever happened. Of course, I am not a lawyer, and people should consult one if they feel it is necessary).

Now, do I think that a cop *would* charge you merely for having picks in your garage in plain view, in Virginia? That's a different question entirely. The point is that in Virginia, he technically *could*, and it would not be on the state to prove your intent - it would be on you to prove your lack of intent.

Again, I find it funny that you're trying to argue around something that is so plainly true. Why can't you just admit you were wrong when you were making accusations that I didn't understand what prima facie meant? Why do you decide to instead state something that I myself had stated (i.e. that in Texas they have to show both that you possessed them and that you had intent) as though I didn't know it already?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Second, lock picks are different from other tools in the sense that gloves, bolt cutters, a gerber, and coat hangers all have various uses that do not involve opening a device that is primarily intended for security - while lock picks are specifically a tool to open locks, devices which are primarily intended for security.

Third, the Virginia state statute declares that mere possession is prima facie evidence of intent.

You can claim that "possession with intent" is the key to the offense, but when the law says that mere possession is prima facie evidence of intent, then they don't have to prove intent unless *you* can show evidence you had no intent.

Your statement about Texas is what I had stated about Texas - precisely because Texas is not a prima facie state with respect to intent for burglary tools. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote?

So say you're in Virginia, not Texas.

You get caught breaking into someone's house with a flashlight, some gloves, and a screwdriver, they're going to be considered "burgurious tools" in Virginia (and a lot of other places, for that matter, including Texas). They're basically going to argue that you are a burglar, those are your tools, and therefore, those tools are your tools for burglary - and you'll get the extra charge.

But say the cop sees gloves in your garage. What's his argument? He doesn't have one.

The cop sees lock picks in your garage. What's his argument? He can argue that you don't have a locksmith license, that picks are only used to pick locks, and that you possessed them. Then they'll cite 18.2-94 of the Virginia code, which states in part "The possession of such burglarious tools, implements or outfit by any person other than a licensed dealer, shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to commit burglary, robbery or larceny." Guess what? You now have to prove you didn't have intent - precisely because the law states that mere possession is prima facie evidence of intent.

Now, do I think that a cop *would* charge you merely for having picks in your garage in plain view? That's a different question entirely. The point is that in Virginia, he technically *could*, and it would not be on the state to prove your intent - it would be on you to prove your lack of intent.

Again, I find it funny that you're trying to argue around something that is so plainly true. Why can't you just admit you were wrong when you were making accusations that I didn't understand what prima facie meant? Why do you decide to instead state something that I myself had stated (i.e. that in Texas they have to show both that you possessed them and that you had intent) as though I didn't know it already?

So, lets say I am in Texas. A place that I like much more than Virginia. I have stuff that could pick a lock, but have never picked a lock in a dishonest or illegal manner in my life, and there is no indication that I ever would.

So what? For those that don't think I need a pair of bolt cutters, I'm cool with them thinking that, but I'm also cool with the fact that I still have them in my garage and that they really can't do squat about it where I live. That being said, my bolt cutters will not be used in a crime, neither will my scary black rifle, as long as I have the ability to prevent it.

If mere possession of the tools to commit a crime was really reasonable to convict a person of a crime, every person with a "piece of male anatomy" would be convicted of intent to commit rape.

Again, you are ignoring that I previously stated that in Texas, they have to show both that you possessed such tools, *and* that you had intent. I agree that in Texas, they have the burden to prove intent. I have in fact now stated twice before that this is the case - this paragraph is the third time I have made that statement.

Quote:

If mere possession of the tools to commit a crime was really reasonable to convict a person of a crime, every person with a "piece of male anatomy" would be convicted of intent to commit rape.

Well, first, please find a state that has a law stating that mere possession of a piece of male anatomy is prima facie evidence of intent to commit rape - because it's not a valid comparison without having such a law on the books somewhere. (I would expect such a law to be challenged and thrown out quickly, for obvious reasons. Edit: Maybe not so obvious to you. A court would throw it out because it is fairly easy to show that while all men (except those who have lost it through injury, etc) possess such anatomy, not all men are likely to commit rape. This is a much harder argument to make for lock picks, as not many people own them to begin with, and they are made specifically to open locks without a key).

Second, I am not alleging that it is reasonable. I am not alleging that the police or prosecutors will always bring charges, either. I am, in fact, not even alleging that there will automatically be a conviction in such a case, as the defendant will still get a chance to show they did not have such intent - there's just a much lower bar the prosecution has to hurdle to get the conviction.

I am saying that if you live in a state that declares that some condition is prima facie evidence of a crime, if you meet that that condition, it will not be on the state to show that you committed the crime - it will be on you to show you didn't.

Whether you or I or anyone else thinks it is reasonable is irrelevant - it's how the law works.

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

...With no proof either way, both creation and wild random chance are religious beliefs, based on faith...

Those that do not believe in Creation by a deity and properly understand the science, know that there is nothing wild or random about any of it. Those that want to discredit science for some reason or another, whether they believe in creation or claim they don't know and want that to be a superior belief, always try to play the random card.

What is random about the strengths of the nuclear forces? Magnetism? The speed of light or the compositions of elements. What is random about the fundamental particles?

If those things did not have the values they do, there would not be anything much less anyone to observe it. If you call that random? Oh who am I kidding I already know how much trouble you have with definitions.

Those that do not believe in Creation by a deity and properly understand the science, know that there is nothing wild or random about any of it. Those that want to discredit science for some reason or another, whether they believe in creation or claim they don't know and want that to be a superior belief, always try to play the random card.

What is random about the strengths of the nuclear forces? Magnetism? The speed of light or the compositions of elements. What is random about the fundamental particles?

If those things did not have the values they do, there would not be anything much less anyone to observe it. If you call that random? Oh who am I kidding I already know how much trouble you have with definitions.

If life is just a natural progression from simple chemical reactions in nature, why haven't we found it on the moon or mars? It would not be the same, but it would have adapted to it's own environment. We have found life in areas of the world with water temps approaching 750 degrees Fahrenheit. If a planet has to be just the right distance from just the right star, and contain just the right elements, and rotate at just the right rate..... The elements must be in the right place, at a very small scale, in the right amounts, form into the right structures, organelles, and knit together just right..... What results must be able to maintain homeostasis, be in a hospitable environment, must be able to grow, and to replicate itself with an ability to adapt to it's surroundings to increase it's chance of survival.